Scruton Smears Chomsky

In Tuesdays Wall Street Journal(1) Roger Scruton – Philosopher and hired hand of thetobacco industry launched a feeble attack on Noam Chomsky. Entitled ‘Who Is NoamChomsky’ the piece runs through the usual litany of lies and half truths with even lessskill than is usual in this type of ad hominem assault.

Scruton begins by claiming that Chomsky long ago abandoned his academic career:

“For Prof. Chomsky long ago cast off his academic gown and donned the mantle of theprophet. For several decades now he has been devoting his energies to denouncing hisnative country, usually before packed halls of fans who couldn’t care a fig about thetheory of syntax.”

This accusation is simply false – Chomsky’s political activism and work in linguisticshave run concurrently since the 1960’s, (and Scruton must surely be aware of thepossibilities of multi-tasking since he manages to be both an academic and a tobaccolobbyist). Presumably this fabrication is designed to portray Chomsky as a man who was once asensible and valuable intellectual who has sadly succumbed to hubris – abandoning academefor delusions of grandeur. It would not aid Scruton’s depiction of Chomsky as a greatmind that has gone off the rails if he were to acknowledge that Chomsky in fact never did“cast off his academic gown”.

Scruton then accuses Chomsky of being angry, of being a “ranter” – when as anyone who hasever seen Chomsky speak will know there are few less rhetorical and more restrainedspeakers around. Calling someone “angry” or a “ranter” is of course the politeintellectual’s way of labelling someone as a lunatic. This is a common tactic whendepicting leftists who must not be allowed to be seen as calm and rational – ratherleftists are always “ranters” who “vent their rage” and “vent spleen” etc.

Scruton goes onto dredge up the familiar Cambodia nonsense – claiming that Chomsky was asupporter of the Khmer Rouge. As usual no source or quote is given with regard to thisaccusation (since none exist). The Cambodia claim derives from the fact that Chomsky hasargued that the number of deaths attributed to the Khmer Rouge were inflated forpropaganda purposes, (which they were), and he also argued that the rise of the KhmerRouge was due in no small part to the US bombing of inner Cambodia (killing similarnumbers as are attributable to the Khmer Rouge). Presumably if the latter constitutessupport for the regime then historians of the twentieth century who argue that theVersailles treaty was a significant factor in the rise of National Socialism in Germanyare in fact Nazi apologists.

Having done with lying about his subject Scruton moves onto attacking Hugo Chavez as partof his rather bizarre explanation of Chomsky’s popularity:

“For it is his ability to excite not just contempt for American foreign policy but alively sense that it is guided by some kind of criminal conspiracy that provides themotive for Prof. Chomsky’s unceasing diatribes and the explanation of his influence. Theworld is full of people who wish to think ill of America. And most of them would like tobe Americans. The Middle East seethes with such people, and Prof. Chomsky appealsdirectly to their envious emotions, as well as to the resentments of leaders likePresident Chavez who cannot abide the sight of a freedom that they haven’t the faintestidea how to produce or the least real desire to emulate.”

Would this be the same President Chavez who was briefly toppled by a US backed militarycoup? The same Hugo Chavez who has a popular mandate that puts the Bush regime to shame?The same Hugo Chavez who has been encouraging democracy to move from the political sphere– to the economic – by fostering workers cooperatives and various experiments inself-management. The same Hugo Chavez who has established thousands of medical centresfor the poor? The same Hugo Chavez who has helped thousands of people achieve freedomfrom want by subsiding food for the least well off?

Counter-intuitive though it may seem it appears that the genuinely freedom loving thingfor Chavez to have done would have been to welcome the military junta and perhapsapplauded from exile whilst Venezuela‘s social programs were dismantled and itspopulation again subjected to the tender mercies of a vicious US client regime.

What is perhaps most striking about Scruton’s article is the childish and half-heartednature of the attack. One finishes it thinking ‘God I could have done a better hatchetjob than that!’ No attempt is made to substantiate any of the claims – since of coursethe author knows full well that the supine Anglo/American media will spare him anydifficult questions.

In an email leaked in 2002 Scruton asked his paymasters at Japan Tobacco if they couldraise his payments from £4,500 monthly to £5,500.(2) Presumably they are getting ratherbetter value for money than the Wall Street Journal if this pitiful attempt at characterassassination is anything to go by.